It looks like the UK cannot afford AUKUS Pillar 1 given its new NATO and new Ukraine obligations:
The UK no longer has the money to develop the SSN-AUKUS intended for Australia and, in particular will have difficulty rectifying the PWR2/PWR3 submarine reactor problems in time.
Only by the late 2040s can the UK (in a worse state than the US) develop and deliver SSN-AUKUSes. Given the increasing commitments for the UK defence budget SSN-AUKUSes may be only be evolved Astutes with evolved PWR2s renamed "PWR3".
After several evolved UK SSN classes since 1966 (ie. the Valiant - Churchill and Swiftsure classes) that ended with the Trafalgar class all using the PWR1 the Astute class. since 2010, is a "revolutionary" advance. The Astutes have a fundamentally different, much larger hull with a larger and it turns out troubled PWR2 reactor - piping arrangement. It is not possible for a cash strapped UK to undertake yet another revolutionary advance in the shape of a wholly new SSN-AUKUS. Rather, SSN-AUKUSes are much more likely to be evolved Astutes.
UK Defence Secretary Healey’s embarrassing (to Australian Defence Minister Marles, the RAN and Australian PM Albanese) June 11, 2026 resignation over UK defence money worries indicates the UK simply does not have the Defence Budget to face all of the UK’s worsening NATO/anti-Putin priorities. The UK now uses the slogan "NATO First" for a new priority - UK RAF nuclear strike - which does not include submarines for Australia. UK Armed Forces Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Al Carns, also resigned over budgetary shortfalls.
The UK's defence budget problems that are negatively impacting the UK's SSN-AUKUS project are impacted by Trump's long term distrust over NATO. Trump is believed to rely on "what to do with NATO" advice from Putin. Putin telling a gullible Trump that NATO is a separate entity from the US that exploits US financial goodwill.
Trump’s withdrawal from many NATO and Ukraine responsibilities mean non-US NATO countries, including the UK, have to spread their forces and budgets thinner. Following the US withdrawing funding support for Ukraine major NATO counties like the UK are paying for Ukraine instead, The UK defence budget is also thinning to cover new UK funding for East European NATO members threatened by a warlike Russia.
REACTORS
The need for Australia to have already paid A$5 Billion (so far) to UK Rolls Royce for the PWR3 indicates a severe UK money shortage for AUKUS. The PWR3 is being designed to power the UK's Dreadnought-class SSBNs and the Astute successors, the SSN-AUKUSes.
The UK is also exhibiting a technical inability to maintain the PWR3's precursor, the PWR2 - used on the Vanguard SSBNs and on the Astute SSNs - see all UK SSNs are at present again unavailable, due to repeated piping to PWR2 reactor faults.
Please scroll half way down this Turner, Julian (29 July 2013) article here at https://www.naval-technology.com/features/feature-nuclear-submarine-successor-uk-royal-navy/?cf-view to subheading “Power surge: PWR-3 propulsion, munitions and electrical systems” indicating that in the years up to 2013 there was US assistance for then UK Successor-class/now renamed Dreadnought-class SSBN's PWR3/PWR-3. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR#PWR3 "PWR3 was a new system "based on a US design but using UK reactor technology".[22][23]
PWR3 submarine reactor development is also intended for SSN-AUKUS.
The UK may be receiving less US technical/monetary support for PWR3 reactor development because Trump and Hegseth now see the PWR3 as an undeserving NATO project.
Unless Australia funds (say) 80% of SSN-AUKUS and PWR3 costs the UK, at best, may only be able to provide Astute/PRW2 variants to go into “SSN-AUKUS” in the late 2040s/early 2050s.
Australia gets what the US and UK deign to give us, after the needs of the America First USN and then the NATO First UK are met.
3 comments:
At this rate, it will be faster to team up with South Korea:
https://www.twz.com/sea/south-korea-getting-nuclear-submarines-is-a-huge-deal
Hi Anonymous at 6/16/2026 3:44 PM
I agree with "At this rate, it will be faster to team up with South Korea"
South Korea, like China and Japan, has a rapid shipbuilding sector.
This is contrast to the US having too many projects on the go (Columbia SSBNs, Ford class carriers and Arleigh Burkes) and the UK's ailing in all shipbuilding sectors along with too many NATO and Ukraine commitments.
If SK's LEU reactor solution is, in fact, an undeclared backdoor to France's Barracuda/Suffren SSN program, then all the better.
A smaller SK-Barracuda solution is more in line with Australia's needs than the unobtainable Virginia Block IVs and VIs and over large troubled UK evolved Astute and troubled PWR2/"PWR3"
Regards Pete
Thanks Pete for a detailed if grim read from an Australian perspective.
I did not know the details of the RN problems with the PWR2 and PWR3 reactors, but I am not surprised. The UK nuclear industry is only 1/4 the size of the French nuclear industry. The French simply have a lot more capacity.
I have thought for a while that the French Suffren was a better option for Australia. The RAN seems to always want the biggest and best, but most navies are better off with something reliable that can actually be gotten to sea
Post a Comment